Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 6 Filed 11/10/20 Page 1 of 22
`
`THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`AMERICAN SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION
`and PLAINS COTTON GROWERS,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`ANDREW R. WHEELER, et. al.
`
`Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-03190 (RCL)
`
`Defendants,
`
`and
`
`BASF CORPORATION,
`
`Proposed Defendant-Intervenor.
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTERVENE BY BASF CORPORATION
`BASF Corporation (“BASF”) moves this Court for leave to intervene in this case
`pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7(j). BASF seeks
`intervention as of right to participate fully in this action pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2), or in the
`alternative, permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)(1)(B). In addition, BASF requests that
`BASF’s deadline to file a responsive pleading be extended until such time as the Federal
`Defendants are required to file their responsive pleading, or until such other time set by
`subsequent order of this Court. A Memorandum in Support and a Proposed Order are also filed
`with this Motion.
`Pursuant to Local Rule 7(m), BASF contacted counsel for Plaintiffs and for Defendants,
`and Plaintiffs and Defendants indicated that they do not oppose this motion to intervene or the
`request to defer the deadline for filing a responsive pleading.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 6 Filed 11/10/20 Page 2 of 22
`
`Date: November 10, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ David A. Barker__________________________
`John C. Cruden (D.C. Bar No. 261321)
`Kathryn E. Szmuszkovicz (D.C. Bar No. 388735)
`Anthony L. Michaels (D.C. Bar No. 458510)
`David A. Barker (D.C. Bar No. 486283)
`BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND, P.C.
`1350 I Street, N.W., Suite 700
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3311
`T: (202) 789-6000 F: (202) 789-6190
`jcruden@bdlaw.com
`kes@bdlaw.com
`alm@bdlaw.com
`dab@bdlaw.com
`
`John Wellschlager, pro hac vice pending
`DLA PIPER LLP
`The Marbury Building
`6225 Smith Avenue
`Baltimore, Maryland 21209-3600
`T: (410) 580-3000 F: (410) 580-3001
`john.wellschlager@dlapiper.com
`
`Angela C. Agrusa, pro hac vice pending
`DLA PIPER LLP
`2000 Avenue of the Stars
`Suite 400 North Tower
`Los Angeles, California 90067-4704
`T: (310) 595-3000 F: (310) 5959-3300
`angela.agrusa@dlapiper.com
`
`Matt Holian, pro hac vice pending
`DLA PIPER LLP
`33 Arch Street, 26th Floor
`Boston, Massachusetts 02110-1447
`T: (617) 406-6000 F: (617) 406-6100
`matt.holian@dlapiper.com
`
`Attorneys for Proposed Defendant-Intervenor
`BASF Corporation
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 6 Filed 11/10/20 Page 3 of 22
`
`THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`AMERICAN SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION
`and PLAINS COTTON GROWERS,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`ANDREW R. WHEELER, et. al.
`
`Defendants,
`
`and
`
`BASF CORPORATION,
`
`Proposed Defendant-Intervenor.
`
`Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-03190 (RCL)
`
`PROPOSED DEFENDANT- INTERVENOR BASF CORPORATION’S
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTION TO INTERVENE
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 6 Filed 11/10/20 Page 4 of 22
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES........................................................................................................ii
`I.
`INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1
`II.
`BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................2
`A.
`Regulatory Framework............................................................................................2
`1.
`FIFRA’s Comprehensive Regulation Of Pesticides ....................................2
`2.
`ESA And Its Implementation For Pesticides...............................................3
`The Challenged Registrations..................................................................................5
`B.
`ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................................6
`A.
`BASF Should Be Granted Leave To Intervene As Of Right...................................7
`1.
`BASF Has Standing.....................................................................................8
`2.
`The Motion Is Timely..................................................................................9
`3.
`BASF Has A Cognizable Interest In The Subject Matter Of This Action ..9
`4.
`Disposition Of This Action May Impair BASF’s Interest In Its
`Registration................................................................................................10
`BASF’s Interests Are Not Adequately Represented By EPA Or Other
`Parties ........................................................................................................11
`BASF Also Meets The Requirements For Permissive Intervention......................13
`B.
`Request For Extension Of The Deadline To File A Responsive Pleading............14
`C.
`CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................15
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`5.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 6 Filed 11/10/20 Page 5 of 22
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`CASES
`
`Am. Horse Prot. Ass’n v. Veneman
`200 F.R.D. 153 (D.C. Cir. 2001)...........................................................................................9, 11
`Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency,
`No. 14-1036, Order (D.C. Cir. July 28, 2015)...........................................................................10
`Deutsche Bank Nat. Tr. Co. v. F.D.I.C.
`717 F.3d 189 (D.C. Cir. 2013).....................................................................................................7
`Dimond v. District of Columbia
`792 F.2d 179 (D.C. Cir. 1986)...................................................................................................11
`E.E.O.C. v. Nat’l Children’s Center, Inc.
`146 F.3d 1042 (D.C. Cir. 1998).................................................................................................13
`Forest County Potawatomi Cmty. v. U.S.
`317 F.R.D. 6 (D.D.C. 2016) ........................................................................................................9
`Foster v. Gueory
`655 F.2d 1319 (D.C. Cir. 1981)...................................................................................................9
`*Fund for Animals v. Norton
`322 F.3d 728 (D.C. Cir. 2003)...........................................................................................8, 9, 11
`*Hardin v. Jackson
`600 F. Supp. 2d 13 (D.D.C. 2009).......................................................................................10, 11
`Karsner v. Lothian, 532 F.3d 876
`(D.C. Cir. 2008)...........................................................................................................................9
`Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
`504 U.S. 555 (1992) ....................................................................................................................8
`Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior
`Civ. No. 1:20-cv-01918-ABJ, Opinion and Order (D.D.C. August 27, 2020)..........................14
`Merrell v. Thomas
`807 F.2d 776 (9th Cir. 1986).......................................................................................................3
`Nat. Res. Def. Council v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency
`99 F.R.D. 607 (D.D.C. 1983) ....................................................................................................10
`Nat'l Family Farm Coal. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency
`No. 19-70115, Orders (9th Cir. May 15, 2020, June 12, 2020) ................................................12
`Nat'l Family Farm Coal. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency
`960 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2020)...............................................................................................5, 12
`New England Anti-Vivisection Soc’y v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv.
`Civ. No. 1:16-cv-00149-KBJ, 2016 WL 10839560 (D.D.C. Apr. 29, 2016)............................14
`Nuesse v. Camp
`385 F.2d 694 (D.C. Cir. 1967).....................................................................................................9
`Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc. v. Shore
`439 U.S. 322 (1979) ..................................................................................................................10
`Pesticide Action Network N. Am. (PANNA) v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency
`No. C 08-01814 MHP, 2008 WL 11404954 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2008)................................10, 11
`Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. U.S. Dep’t of Navy
`898 F.2d 1410 (9th Cir. 1990).....................................................................................................4
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 6 Filed 11/10/20 Page 6 of 22
`
`Reckitt Benckiser Inc. v. EPA
`613 F.3d 1131 (D.C. Cir. 2010)...................................................................................................3
`Roeder v. Islamic Republic of Iran
`333 F.3d 228 (D.C. Cir. 2003).....................................................................................................8
`Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp
`523 F. Supp. 2d 5 (D.D.C. 2007)...............................................................................................13
`Smoke v. Norton
`252 F.3d 468 (D.C. Cir. 2001).....................................................................................................7
`Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg
`268 F.3d 810 (9th Cir. 2001).......................................................................................................7
`The Wilderness Society v. Babbitt
`104 F. Supp. 2d 10 (D.D.C. 2000)...............................................................................................7
`Trbovich v. United Mine Workers of Am.
`404 U.S. 528 (1972) ..................................................................................................................11
`Washington All. of Tech. Workers v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.
`395 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2019)...............................................................................................14
`WildEarth Guardians v. Jewell
`320 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2017) ........................................................................................................8
`WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar
`272 F.R.D. 4 (D.D.C. 2010) ....................................................................................................7, 9
`STATUTES & REGULATIONS
`40 C.F.R. § 152.15...........................................................................................................................2
`40 C.F.R. § 152.3.............................................................................................................................3
`40 C.F.R. § 402.14(a) ......................................................................................................................4
`50 C.F.R. § 402.13(c) ......................................................................................................................4
`Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-44.........................................................................3, 4
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 ..........................................................................................................................14
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 ..........................................................................................................2, 10, 12, 14
`Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. § 136 ...................................passim
`LCvR 7(j).......................................................................................................................................14
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`134 Cong. Rec. 18573-4 (1988) ......................................................................................................4
`6 Moore’s Federal Practice § 24.10...............................................................................................13
`Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1988,
`Pub. L. No. 100-478, § 1010, 102 Stat. 2313, 2313-14 (1988) ...................................................4
`H.R. Rep. No. 100-928 (1988) (Conf. Rep.),
`reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2738.........................................................................................4
`Pesticides; Procedural Regulations for Registration Review,
`71 Fed. Reg. 45,720, 45,720 (Aug. 9, 2006) ...............................................................................3
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 6 Filed 11/10/20 Page 7 of 22
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`BASF’s direct interest in this action justifies intervention as of right under the Federal
`Rules. BASF owns the registration for Engenia, a dicamba herbicide product, that the United
`States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) approved on October 27, 2020.1 The Engenia
`registration is a federal license issued by EPA to BASF under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
`and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”), 7 U.S.C. § 136 et seq., without which BASF cannot distribute
`and sell its Engenia herbicide product. Plaintiffs seek to modify the terms of the Engenia
`registration by challenging certain aspects of EPA’s registration order and seek declaratory
`judgment that the remainder of EPA’s Engenia registration decision is lawful under FIFRA and
`the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.
`On October 27, 2020, EPA granted unconditional registrations for Engenia and two other
`dicamba products, allowing use of the products over the top of dicamba-tolerant (“DT”) soybean
`and cotton crops.2 These products are important agricultural tools for the nation’s cotton and
`soybean farmers. They provide effective weed control and help to address and manage
`increasing challenges posed by glyphosate-resistant weeds.3 Plaintiffs challenge certain aspects
`of EPA’s registration orders, specifically the application cutoff dates and the extent of the
`increased in-field downwind application buffers. Compl. ¶¶ 91-131.
`The challenged restrictions were imposed by EPA to ensure that concerns regarding off-
`site movement and potential non-target plant damage are fully addressed. Modifying or
`eliminating the restrictions would diminish these safeguards, which could increase the actual or
`perceived risk of potential crop damage and would directly impact BASF’s interest in its Engenia
`registration and business. While BASF is sympathetic to the burdens these restrictions impose
`on growers, BASF supports EPA’s highly protective registration decision as the best approach to
`
`
`1 Engenia Herbicide Registration Notice and Label (October 27, 2020), Compl. Exhibit C.
`2 Memorandum Supporting Decision to Approve Registration for the Uses of Dicamba on
`Dicamba Tolerant Cotton and Soybean (October 27, 2020) (“Registration Memorandum”),
`Compl. Exhibit. A.
`3 Registration Memorandum at 15-17.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 6 Filed 11/10/20 Page 8 of 22
`
`ensure the continued availability of this important product. In addition, BASF has a strong
`interest in defending the lawfulness of its Engenia registration in connection with any disputes
`arising in this action from Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory judgment.
`The requirements for intervention as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) are satisfied.
`BASF’s request is timely, BASF’s registration is one of the registrations Plaintiffs seek to
`modify and a subject of the request for declaratory judgment, and BASF’s ability to protect its
`interests in its registration would be impaired by an adverse disposition. Finally, as courts have
`repeatedly held in similar actions, BASF’s private interests will not be adequately represented by
`EPA. In defending its registration decisions, the Agency takes into account broader interests and
`objectives that diverge from BASF’s more specific commercial and reputational interests in its
`own product registration. As has occurred in prior challenges to FIFRA registrations, this may
`lead EPA to take different positions, present different arguments and interpretations of the
`administrative record, and agree to settlement terms that would not be acceptable to BASF.
`Accordingly, the Court should grant BASF’s Motion to Intervene.
`BASF also requests that the deadline for BASF to file a responsive pleading be extended
`until such time as the Federal Defendants are required to file their responsive pleading, or until
`such other time set by order of this Court
`II.
`BACKGROUND
`A.
`Regulatory Framework
`1.
`FIFRA’s Comprehensive Regulation Of Pesticides
`Under FIFRA, every pesticide product must be registered by EPA before it can be
`distributed or sold in the United States (with limited exceptions not relevant here). 7 U.S.C.
`§ 136a.4 “A ‘registration’ is a “license that allows a pesticide product to be distributed or sold
`for specific uses under specified terms and conditions.” Pesticides; Procedural Regulations for
`
`
`4 See also 40 C.F.R. § 152.15 (“No person may distribute or sell any pesticide product that is not
`registered under the Act.”); 7 U.S.C. § 136j(a)(1)(A) (unlawful to distribute or sell unregistered
`pesticides).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 6 Filed 11/10/20 Page 9 of 22
`
`Registration Review, 71 Fed. Reg. 45,720, 45,720 (Aug. 9, 2006); see Reckitt Benckiser Inc. v.
`EPA, 613 F.3d 1131, 1133 (D.C. Cir. 2010). A registration is issued to a specific registrant, for a
`specific formulation, packaging, and label. See 40 C.F.R. § 152.3 (defining “[p]esticide product”
`as “a pesticide in the particular form (including composition, packaging, and labeling) in which
`the pesticide is, or is intended to be, distributed or sold”); 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(1)(C).
`To obtain an EPA registration for a pesticide product, with certain exceptions not relevant
`here, an applicant must submit extensive scientific data sufficient to support a determination by
`EPA that use of the product as directed will pose no “unreasonable risk to man or the
`environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits” of
`the product. 7 U.S.C. § 136(bb). As reflected in this “risk/benefit” standard and throughout the
`statute, “FIFRA explicitly accommodates agriculture’s need for pesticides” and “reflects the
`need to balance environmental and agricultural impacts.” Merrell v. Thomas, 807 F.2d 776, 780-
`81 (9th Cir. 1986).
`Under FIFRA, EPA can approve a registration unconditionally, deny the application, or
`approve it with conditions. 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5)-(7). The statute directs EPA to grant an
`unconditional registration when it determines, among other things, that the product does not
`cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment (applying the “risk/benefit” standard
`described above) when used as instructed on the EPA-approved product label.5 7 U.S.C.
`§ 136a(c)(5)(C)-(D).
`2.
`ESA And Its Implementation For Pesticides
`The Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-44, was originally enacted in
`1973. Congress has amended the ESA on several occasions to foster a balance between the
`protection of endangered and threatened species, and the need to sustain vigorous agricultural
`production through the development and use of innovative new pesticide products registered
`under FIFRA.
`
`
`5 It is illegal to use a pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its label. 7 U.S.C. § 136j(a)(2)(G).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 6 Filed 11/10/20 Page 10 of 22
`
`Each federal agency retains discretion to determine how best to fulfill its statutory
`obligations under the ESA. Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. U.S. Dep’t of Navy, 898
`F.2d 1410, 1418 (9th Cir. 1990). ESA Section 7(a)(2) includes procedural mechanisms for
`informal and formal consultation between the action agency (here, EPA) and one of the two
`federal services responsible for wildlife and marine life (the “Services”). 16 U.S.C. §
`1536(a)(2). If the action agency determines that its action will have “no effect” on listed species
`or critical habitat, no consultation is required. 40 C.F.R. § 402.14(a). If the agency determines
`that its action “may effect” but is “not likely to adversely affect” a listed species or critical
`habitat, and the Service concurs, consultation is completed through informal consultation. 50
`C.F.R. § 402.13(c). Otherwise, formal consultation is required to determine whether or not the
`action is “likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the
`destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.” 50 C.F.R. 402.14(h)(1)(iv).
`In the 1988 ESA amendments, Congress explicitly directed that the ESA be implemented
`so as “to minimize the impacts to persons engaged in agricultural food and fiber commodity
`production and other affected pesticide users and applicators.” Endangered Species Act
`Amendments of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-478, § 1010, 102 Stat. 2313, 2313-14 (1988), 7 U.S.C.
`§ 136a note; see also H.R. Rep. No. 100-928, at 23-24 (1988) (Conf. Rep.), reprinted in 1988
`U.S.C.C.A.N. 2738, 2741-42 (federal agencies are to “implement the [ESA] in a way that
`protects endangered and threatened species while minimizing, where possible, impacts on
`production of agricultural foods and fiber commodities”).6
`
`
`6 See, also, 134 Cong. Rec. 18573-4 (1988) (directing that EPA activities regarding ESA
`implementation be conducted in ways that “would protect endangered or threatened species from
`pesticides and . . . minimize any adverse effect on the production of food and fiber,” thereby
`“minimizing impacts to the farmers, ranchers, and foresters who earn their living from food and
`fiber production”) (statement of Sen. Quentin Burdick).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 6 Filed 11/10/20 Page 11 of 22
`
`The Challenged Registrations
`B.
`Engenia was developed in response to increasing weed resistance to the widely used
`herbicide glyphosate.7 Engenia is used in conjunction with dicamba-tolerant soybean and cotton
`seeds and provides a different mode of action to control weeds that have become resistant to
`glyphosate.8 In order to obtain approval for Engenia and bring it to market, BASF made
`substantial investments in research, development, scientific data required for regulatory
`approval, training, and stewardship. Use of dicamba on DT soybeans and cotton has proven
`effective in reducing crop losses, including to glyphosate-resistant weeds, and is an important
`tool for resistance management.
`EPA approved the first registration for over-the-top use of dicamba on DT soybeans and
`cotton in November 2016, issuing two-year conditional registrations for Monsanto’s XtendiMax
`product (now owned by Bayer). EPA granted registrations for BASF’s Engenia product in
`December 2016 and DuPont’s FeXapan product (now owned by Corteva) in February 2017, also
`for two-year terms. All three registrations were amended and extended in November 2018.
`Several parties challenged EPA’s 2018 registration decision and on June 3, 2020, the Ninth
`Circuit vacated that decision, finding that EPA failed to acknowledge or adequately weigh six
`factors associated with risks of potential off-site movement and crop damage. Nat'l Family
`Farm Coal. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 960 F.3d 1120, 1125 (9th Cir. 2020).
`On October 27, 2020, EPA issued a new, five-year registration for Engenia. In issuing
`the registration, EPA considered new data and information available since 2018, including drift
`and volatility data specific to Engenia that was not before the Ninth Circuit. Based on that new
`administrative record, EPA issued a new registration that includes substantial new use
`
`
`7 See Registration Memorandum at 15; EngeniaTM herbicide field trials demonstrate effective
`control of resistant weeds in soybeans (October 17, 2012),
`https://www.basf.com/us/en/media/news-releases/2012/10/p-12-201.html; The Most Flexible and
`Advanced Dicamba for Dicamba-Tolerant Crops (December 2018),
`https://agro.basf.us/campaigns/engenia/assets/pdf/BASF_Brochure_Engenia_PostRegistration_C
`otton_Dec2018_medres.pdf.
`8 Registration Memorandum at 16, 22.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 6 Filed 11/10/20 Page 12 of 22
`
`restrictions and other requirements to address concerns regarding off-site movement and
`potential non-target plant damage. As a result, this case involves an entirely new registration,
`incorporating new use parameters and restrictions, and supported by a new scientific record – all
`of which are quite different from the registration vacated by the Ninth Circuit. Among other
`things, EPA:
`
` Set objective application cutoff dates of June 30 for soybeans and July 30 for
`cotton rather than relying on subjective cutoffs based on the growth stage of
`crops.
` More than doubled the in-field downwind application buffer from 110 feet to 240
`feet.
` Further increased the in-field downwind application buffer in endangered species
`counties to 310 feet.
` Required that every application include the use of a pH buffering adjuvant that
`ensures low volatility and thus dramatically reduces the potential for off-site
`movement.
` Continued to require that every application be personally performed by a licensed
`certified applicator, and imposed revised training requirements specific to the new
`registration.
` Simplified and shortened the label to maximize clarity and ease of compliance.9
`
`The new requirements will minimize the potential for off-site movement and potential crop
`damage, which was the central concern behind the Ninth Circuit’s June 2020 decision.
`Plaintiffs brought this action on November 4, 2020, challenging EPA’s decision to
`impose the June 30 and July 30 application cutoff dates and to increase the in-field downwind
`application buffer to 240 feet and the endangered species in-field downwind application buffer to
`310 feet, and seeking declaratory judgment that the registration decisions were otherwise lawful
`including EPA’s “no effect” and “not likely to adversely affect” ESA determinations.
`III.
`ARGUMENT
`Intervention as of right is plainly warranted. BASF is the owner of the Engenia
`registration that Plaintiffs seek to modify and that is the subject of Plaintiffs’ request for
`
`
`9 Registration Memorandum at 3-4.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 6 Filed 11/10/20 Page 13 of 22
`
`declaratory judgment. BASF invested considerable resources to obtain that registration and to
`create a market for Engenia use on DT cotton and soybean. That registration is a federal license
`specific to BASF, which provides the legal basis for BASF to conduct its business. BASF’s
`interest in its registration will be impaired if Plaintiffs succeed in removing or modifying the
`additional safeguards imposed by EPA to address concerns for potential off-site movement and
`crop damage. BASF also has a strong interest in defending the lawfulness of its Engenia
`registration in connection with Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory judgment. Because each
`registration is company- and product-specific, and because BASF’s Engenia product differs in
`formulation and composition from the other dicamba products registered for DT soybean and
`cotton use, BASF uniquely holds distinct legal rights that are directly at stake and that will be
`adjudicated in this case. For all of these reasons, this Court should grant BASF’s motion for
`intervention. Indeed, registrants’ motions to intervene are routinely granted when their FIFRA
`registrations are challenged.
`A.
`BASF Should Be Granted Leave To Intervene As Of Right
`The four requirements for intervention as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`24(a)(2) are “(1) timeliness; (2) a cognizable interest; (3) impairment of that interest; and (4) lack
`of adequate representation by existing parties.” Smoke v. Norton, 252 F.3d 468, 470 (D.C. Cir.
`2001). Courts in this circuit have adopted a “liberal” approach to intervention. The Wilderness
`Society v. Babbitt, 104 F. Supp. 2d 10, 18 (D.D.C. 2000). In applying the intervention factors,
`courts accept “the non-conclusory allegations and record evidence offered by the Putative
`Intervenors in support of their motions to intervene.” WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, 272
`F.R.D. 4, 9 (D.D.C. 2010). “Courts are to take all well-pleaded, nonconclusory allegations in the
`motion to intervene … as true absent sham, frivolity or other objections.” Id., quoting Sw. Ctr.
`for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 819-20 (9th Cir. 2001).
`As a threshold matter, an applicant for intervention as a matter of right must also
`demonstrate standing under Article III of the United States Constitution. Deutsche Bank Nat. Tr.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 6 Filed 11/10/20 Page 14 of 22
`
`Co. v. F.D.I.C., 717 F.3d 189, 193 (D.C. Cir. 2013), citing Fund for Animals v. Norton, 322 F.3d
`728, 732-33 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
`All requirements for standing and intervention as of right are satisfied here.
`1.
`BASF Has Standing
`To establish standing, BASF must show “(1) injury-in-fact, (2) causation, and (3)
`redressability.” Fund For Animals, 322 F.3d at 733, citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504
`U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992). These factors overlap so significantly with the requirements of
`intervention as of right that some courts have suggested that a separate standing inquiry is
`repetitive and unnecessary. See, e.g., Roeder v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 333 F.3d 228, 233
`(D.C. Cir. 2003); WildEarth Guardians v. Jewell, 320 F.R.D. 1, 3 n. 3 (D.D.C. 2017).
`BASF’s standing in the case “is self-evident” on the face of the pleadings because
`BASF’s Engenia registration is an “object of the action . . . at issue.” Fund for Animals, 322 F.3d
`at 733-34, n. 5. An injury-in-fact is “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a)
`concrete and particularized[] and (b) actual or imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical.’ ”
`Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 (citations omitted). Plaintiffs seek to modify the terms of BASF’s
`Engenia registrations. If they are successful, removal or modification of the additional
`safeguards imposed by EPA could increase the actual or perceived risks of potential crop damage
`from off-site movement, causing damage to BASF’s specific interests in its Engenia registration
`and business and threatening financial losses and reputational harm. Likewise, an adverse
`decision on Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory judgment could call into question the lawfulness of
`BASF’s registration or lead to adverse action against it. Financial injuries are sufficient to satisfy
`Article III’s injury in fact requirement. Fund for Animals, 322 F.3d at 733 (“The threatened loss
`of … dollars … constitute[s] a concrete and imminent injury.”). A decision favorable to EPA on
`the request for modification and favorable to Plaintiffs on the request for declaratory judgment
`would prevent these injuries.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 6 Filed 11/10/20 Page 15 of 22
`
`The Motion Is Timely
`2.
`Timeliness is “to be judged in consideration of all the circumstances, especially weighing
`the factors of time elapsed since the inception of the suit, the purpose for which intervention is
`sought, the need for intervention as a means of preserving the applicant's rights, and the
`probability of prejudice to those already parties in the case.” Karsner v. Lothian, 532 F.3d 876,
`886 (D.C. Cir. 2008). In this case, Plaintiffs filed the Complaint less than six days ago, the Court
`has neither held a hearing nor issued any substantive decisions, and EPA has not filed an answer,
`motion to dismiss, or other responsive pleading. See WildEarth, 272 F.R.D. at 14 (intervention
`motion was timely when filed before the federal defendants answered); Forest County
`Potawatomi Cmty. v. U.S., 317 F.R.D. 6, 13 (D.D.C. 2016) (motion to intervene timely when
`filed before any answers were filed). There has been no undue delay in BASF’s request to
`intervene and this motion will not prejudice any party to the litigation. BASF’s motion is timely.
`
`3.
`
`BASF Has A Cognizable Interest In The Subject Matter Of This
`Action
`As the owner of the Engenia registration that Plaintiffs seek to modify and that is the
`subject of the Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory judgment, BASF has a cognizable interest in the
`subject matter of this case. The interest test is “primarily a practical guide to disposing of
`lawsuits by involving as many apparently conc